Home / Massachusetts / Braintree
95 Commercial Street, Braintree, MA 02184 · Norfolk County · (781) 664-6818
204 certified beds, about 182 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1967
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 225058 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 11, 2026, inspectors cited 9 health deficiencies (the Massachusetts average is 6.8, the national average 9.2).
None of its 33 health citations since August 2023 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.59 hours per resident per day, against 3.86 across Massachusetts and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.65 of those hours.
29.9% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Massachusetts average 38.2%).
CMS links it to Royal Health Group, an affiliated group of 12 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 33 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to maintain a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program with documentation of the development, implementation, and evaluation of corrective actions or performance improvement activities. Specifically, the facility failed to develop and implement appropriate plans of action for resident concerns regarding food temperatures.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to maintain a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee which included the required members at their meetings. Specifically, the facility's Infection Preventionist failed to attend three of three QAPI meetings reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of Resident Council Minutes, a resident group meeting, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure grievances/complaints brought forward from the Resident Council were addressed and resolved in a timely manner to ensure the residents felt their concerns were acted upon and included the facility response to the group.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that individualized, comprehensive care plans were developed and consistently implemented for one Resident (#5), out of a total sample of 34 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure resident specific, individualized care plans were developed to address the medical, physical, mental and psychosocial needs of a residents identified with a history of suicidal ideation/attempt/gestures.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received food at appetizing temperatures for two of two test trays completed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice for food safety to prevent the potential spread of foodborne illness to residents who are at high risk. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure food items were properly dated and stored in 3 of 7 kitchenette refrigerators.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide an ongoing program of individual and group activities designed to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of residents on one (Kensington 2 unit) of seven nursing units. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure staff provided a meaningful and engaging activity program, including materials for self-directed activity, for residents residing on the Kensington 2 unit (secured).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a safe environment, free of accident hazards for one Resident (#74), out of 35 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #74's smoking materials were stored securely, and a smoking assessment was completed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored in accordance with acceptable standards for one Resident (#94), out of a total sample of 35 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #94's three inhaler medications were stored securely.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for two of three sampled residents (Resident #2 and #3), the Facility failed to ensure that upon admission, they developed and implemented baseline care plans with interventions, treatments, goals, and outcomes that addressed the residents' overall immediate care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #2), whose Hospital Discharge Summary included instructions related to voiding trials and the removal of his/her indwelling catheter (flexible tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine), the Facility failed to ensure he/she underwent a voiding trial and was assessed timely for potential removal of the catheter, which resulted in the extended use of an indwelling device.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and records reviewed, the facility failed to ensure a reasonable accommodation was made for seven Residents (#150, #101, #49, #148, #65, #102, and #93), on the Sunshine Unit with a census of 35. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the call system was accessible to the Residents to call for staff assistance.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the residents' environment was clean, comfortable, and homelike. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the resident rooms were maintained in good repair (without holes, painted) and homelike on one unit (K2) out of seven.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice for food safety and sanitation to prevent the potential spread of foodborne illness to residents who are at high risk. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure thickened beverage items were properly dated and stored in three of seven kitchenettes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#67) was provided a therapeutic diet as ordered, in a total sample of 34 residents. Specifically, Resident #67, with weight loss, was not provided fortified food as ordered.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to assess triggers for a Resident (#22) with a history of trauma, to avoid potential re-traumatization, out of a total sample of 34 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that for two Residents (#86 and #232), of a total sample of 34 residents, that Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments accurately reflected the residents' status.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled Residents (Resident #1), who experienced a decline in condition with weakness, and who had a new physicians order in effect on 4/24/23 at the start of the evening shift, for nursing obtain a urine sample STAT (obtain sample immediately) for testing, the Facility failed to ensure nursing notified the provider when 24 hours later, they had been unable to obtain the sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who had a physicians order for STAT (to be obtained immediately) bloodwork, the Facility failed to ensure abnormal laboratory results were promptly reported to his/her Health Care Providers (Physician or Nurse Practitioner (NP). On 04/24/23 Resident #1's laboratory results were reported to the Facility by the laboratory via their electronic medical record system, Point Click Care (PCC), however the results were not reported to his/her Health Care Provider until the following day. Findings Include: Review of the Facility's Policy, titled Lab and Diagnostic Test Results - Clinical Protocol, dated as revised October 2022, indicated the following: -the physician will order lab testing, the staff will arrange for the tests and the laboratory will report test results to the facility; [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who had lost his/her upper dentures in October 2022, the Facility failed to ensure he/she had a timely dental consultation for the replacement of his/her upper dentures. Resident #1 was not seen by the dentist until July 2023 for the fabrication of the upper dentures, nine months after the loss of his/her upper dentures. Findings Include: Review of the Facility's Policy, titled Dental Services, dated May 2023, indicated the following: -routine and emergency dental services are available to meet the resident's oral health services; -facility will contract with a Consultant Dentist to provide services on site; -dentures will be protected from loss or damage, to the extent practicable, while being stored; -if dentures are lost, residents will be referred for dental services within three days; [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, policy review, and record review, the facility failed to report alleged incidents for three Residents (#147, #26, and #21), out of a sample of 35 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #147, to report a resident-to-resident altercation; 2. For Resident #26, to report an incident of alleged abuse to the state agency in a timely manner; and 3. For Resident #21, to report a resident-to-resident altercation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, policy review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure that it was free of a medication error rate of 5 percent or greater. The surveyor observed 1 of 2 licensed nurses (Nurse #2) make errors while administering medications on 1 of 2 units. Five medication errors were observed out of 30 opportunities, resulting in a medication error rate of 16.67%. This affected two Residents (#48, #96), out of a total of three residents observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, policy review, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of significant medication errors for two Residents (#116, #38), out of a total sample of 35 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #116, to ensure Eliquis (apixaban) (an anticoagulant medication used to treat and prevent blood clots) was given as ordered following a hospitalization for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (a blood clot in a deep vein) and pulmonary embolism (a blood clot in the lung) requiring a thrombectomy (a procedure to remove blood clots); and 2. For Resident #38, to ensure Chlorpromazine (an antipsychotic medication used to treat schizoaffective disorder), was given timely per facility policy on 23 out of 42 opportunities, resulting in a significant medication error.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were dated once opened, according to manufacturer's guidelines in 3 out of 4 medication carts observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident's (#38) grievances were addressed, out of 35 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, policy review, and record review, the facility failed to apply a splint as ordered by the physician for one Resident (#5), out of a sample of 35 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to obtain physician's orders for treatment of a skin tear (layers of skin separate or peel back) for one Resident (#154), out of a total sample of 35 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#116), out of a total sample of 35 residents, received proper treatment to maintain vision following cataract surgery. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure follow-up appointments were scheduled with the surgeon following the procedure.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide respiratory care per the physician's orders for two Residents (#148 and #5), out of a sample of 35 residents. Specifically, the facility failed for Residents #148 and #5 to clean the oxygen filters as ordered.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to implement trauma informed care plans, specific to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), for two Residents (#40 and #95), out of a sample of 35 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an accurate medical record for one Resident (#148), out of a sample of 35 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to transcribe a physician's telephone order for the Resident to receive Oxygen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, policy review, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to help prevent the development and transmission of infections for one Resident (#116), out of a total sample of 35 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: a. Ensure contact precautions were maintained for Resident #116 while being treated for an active multi-drug resistant organism per facility policy, and b. Ensure enhanced barrier precautions were maintained for Resident #116 following the identification of a multi-drug resistant organism per facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to inform 2 out of 3 Residents, or their representative, of potential liability for payment for non-covered services including estimated cost of services.
23 fire safety citations on file: 7 on February 11, 2026, 14 on November 15, 2024, 2 on August 3, 2023.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Massachusetts | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.59 | 3.86 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.65 | 0.65 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.25 | 3.48 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.14 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.81 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 29.9% | 38.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 28.6% | 42.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.73 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.73 on weekdays and 3.25 on weekends, 13% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 5.3% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.67 in April to June 2025 to 3.59 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.59 | 0.65 | 3.73 | 3.25 | 5.3% | 0 of 90 | 182 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.57 | 0.64 | 3.72 | 3.21 | 5.9% | 0 of 92 | 185 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.68 | 0.62 | 3.80 | 3.37 | 6.2% | 0 of 92 | 178 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.67 | 0.66 | 3.79 | 3.38 | 7.0% | 0 of 91 | 176 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Massachusetts, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.79 | 0.61 | 3.94 | 3.41 | 5.0% | 0.4% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Massachusetts, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $22.44 | $21.32 to $23.94 | 38,130 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $38.57 | $34.91 to $40.66 | 13,210 |
| Registered nurses | $50.27 | $42.05 to $65.44 | 88,200 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Massachusetts | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.2 | 16.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.1 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.0 | 15.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.7 | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 22.1 | 21.4 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 20.1 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 6.5 | 11.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.4 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Royal Braintree Nursing and Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (57.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
57.1% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Massachusetts: 121 better, 19 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 133 eligible stays.
12.8% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Massachusetts: 4 better, 15 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 191 eligible stays.
6.9% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Massachusetts: 5 better, 4 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 115 eligible stays.
20.6% this home
Median of homes: Massachusetts51.6% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 73 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Massachusetts0.4% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 87 residents counted.
2.6% this home
Median of homes: Massachusetts2.0% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 87 residents counted.
100.0% this home
Median of homes: Massachusetts99.5% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 23 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: 95 COMMERCIAL, LLC. CMS links this home to Royal Health Group, a group of 12 nursing homes averaging 3.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mamary, James | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 100% | 08/01/2008 |
| Reid, Paula | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/01/2013 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.